debunking nutrition myth was: Cholesterol question

[Guest guest]

hey, ami -

i think this sort of thing is really important. it's hard to get over the

propaganda that we've been fed, and even harder is to take the step and be

truly responsible for your own nutrition. if we do what the " experts " tell

us, and we get sick/fat/die, then hey - we did what we were supposed to do.

it's not our fault. cancer/heart disease/whatever runs in the family...

but letting go of the cholesterol numbers, and letting go of all the other

quatsch, as hard as it is at first, is the only way to avoid the things

they say " run in the family " . sure, genetic stuff is genetic stuff, but so

many of the things that we consider familial traits are because of habit,

not genetics. by repeating our parents' habits, we're dooming ourselves to

repeat their illnesses, too.

so, ya know. there's not really a point here, except that it's a little

scary to throw away the net, to be sure of ourselves - and that's ok.

for me, that's the most important reason to be on this list. that net

wasn't helping us anyway.

-katja

[Guest guest]

Not only would preparing foods from scratch in our own kitchens affect

the pockets of the medical " establishment, " but the food industry as

well. All the processed and pre-packaged food manufacturers would be

out of business or at least severely affected. There's a lot of money

at stake if people start taking responsibility for their own health.

(Not to mention the insurance companies and lawyers who are now

benefiting from people's illnesses also.)

~ Fern

PrRE: debunking nutrition myth was:

Cholesterol question

<snip>

> It is my firm belief that if we started eating only those items that

can be

> prepared from scratch in our own kitchens in 20-30 years we would

see a

> dramatic turn around in the health of this country.

>

> And that is exactly what the " Establishment " does not want. Removing

the

> " designer diseases " would destroy the drug and medical industries.

And none

> of the disease societies (American Cancer Society, American Diabetes

and

> Dietetic Associations, American Heart Association, etc) have any

desire to

> put themselves out of business.

<snip>

[Guest guest]

Ah, yes. A move to a truly healthy diet would almost certainly crash the

economy.

The food companies would suffer the least as it is easiest for them to

adapt.

For many people it is not practical to grow or make all of their own foods.

What needs to be done is for a strong message sent to the food companies

that we will no longer purchase their processed fake foods. Low carb or

otherwise. If we let them know that we want whole foods they will provide.

Our biggest obstacle are the people who are blindfolded by the fancy media

ads into believing that the junk in boxes that fills the grocery shelves is

the healthiest way to prove that you love your family and are taking good

care of them.

Because the natural food movement does not have billions of dollars to waste

on advertising we have to do it one person at a time.

I think the change to low-carb has been prompted by people who are sick and

tired of being sick and tired. They have followed the doctors' and the

Establishment's recommendations for diet and only became sicker and more

tired.

As I have said before, the food companies will adapt. They will provide

quantities of soy laden, over-processed junk and call it " healthy, low-carb "

food. And we will be right back where we started.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Fern [mailto:readnwrite@...]

Not only would preparing foods from scratch in our own kitchens affect

the pockets of the medical " establishment, " but the food industry as

well. All the processed and pre-packaged food manufacturers would be

out of business or at least severely affected. There's a lot of money

at stake if people start taking responsibility for their own health.

(Not to mention the insurance companies and lawyers who are now

benefiting from people's illnesses also.)

~ Fern

[Guest guest]

Judith-

>Ah, yes. A move to a truly healthy diet would almost certainly crash the

>economy.

If it happened literally overnight, sure, but that's not possible. If

instead small farms gradually proliferate and more people start buying more

expensive food directly from them, and getting healthier in the bargain,

wealth will become somewhat more evenly distributed and people will have

more disposable income to spend on housing, education, luxuries, and whatnot.

Big Agro and Big Pharma probably won't let that happen, though, or at least

not to nearly the degree it should.

-

[Guest guest]

>Not only would preparing foods from scratch in our own kitchens affect

>the pockets of the medical " establishment, " but the food industry as

>well. All the processed and pre-packaged food manufacturers would be

>out of business or at least severely affected. There's a lot of money

>at stake if people start taking responsibility for their own health.

>(Not to mention the insurance companies and lawyers who are now

>benefiting from people's illnesses also.)

>

>~ Fern

Looking at the change in OUR buying habits, I think if everyone

ate like us it would kill the economy. If you get one beef

a year (or shoot an elk, as in the wonderful Harper's article),

some potatoes, beans, cabbage, onions, carrots, and maybe 50 lbs of sorghum

flour a year, and some fruit, you can actually eat pretty well. (Throw in some

dairy

products ... many people COULD keep a small milk goat though, in

Mendicino county folks were keeping them in suburb-type

neighborhoods in the '70s). Hmm. And spaghetti and tortillas ...

anyway, it would be an interesting experiment, the simplest

diet that is also wonderful to eat.

Actually we've been doing more of our " shopping " at the local

farmer ... they have fresh picked greens daily, and some local

eggs (for those who don't have chickens) and other stuff in

season. Now if there were more local farmers like that, maybe

with dairy stuff too, we wouldn't really need grocery stores.

Growing your own vegies is time consuming, but cooking meals

from scratch doesn't actually have to take all that long.

Broiling a steak doesn't take any more time really, than

nuking a TV dinner.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

For the sake of the workers I hope you are right.

No matter how slowly it happens depriving the drug companies of their

exorbitant profits will make itself felt.

And you are right that the drug companies will do everything in their power

to keep those ill gotten billions rolling in. Such as buying out magazines

like Reader's Digest.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...]

Judith-

>Ah, yes. A move to a truly healthy diet would almost certainly crash the

>economy.

If it happened literally overnight, sure, but that's not possible. If

instead small farms gradually proliferate and more people start buying more

expensive food directly from them, and getting healthier in the bargain,

wealth will become somewhat more evenly distributed and people will have

more disposable income to spend on housing, education, luxuries, and

whatnot.

Big Agro and Big Pharma probably won't let that happen, though, or at least

not to nearly the degree it should.

-

[Guest guest]

> So for at least three to four generations of people have these diseases

> that

> " run in the family " so they MUST be genetic. Right? WRONG! ! !

Judith,

Are you sure you aren't arguing against a straw man? As far as I know, no

one claims that many diseases are wholly determined by genetics. Pretty much

every aspect of a person, in health or disease, has some sort of genetic

component, and some sort of environmental component.

Diabetes clearly has a genetic component-- it's been established by a

considerable amount of research that some 20 or 25% of the population can eat as

much

carbs as they want without insulin problems, while another quarter are very

sensitive to excessive carbs, and the majority lie in the middle. If you're in

the second category you're certainly more likely to get diabetes in response

to poor diet.

That doesn't mean there's " a diabetes gene, " and I'm not so sure any serious

scientist believes there is. But there's a number of genes that relate in

some way to glucose metabolism, so clearly those genes will influence your

liklihood of getting diabetes.

Chris

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> Looking at the change in OUR buying habits, I think if everyone

> ate like us it would kill the economy. If you get one beef

> a year (or shoot an elk, as in the wonderful Harper's article),

> some potatoes, beans, cabbage, onions, carrots, and maybe 50 lbs of

sorghum

> flour a year, and some fruit, you can actually eat pretty well. (Throw

in some dairy

> products ... many people COULD keep a small milk goat though, in

That's not how it works. If you spend less money on food, you'll just

spend more money on something else, which would result in no harm to the

economy (and in fact a net gain, in the sense that you are better off),

or save it, which would help the economy. There would be jobs lost in

some sectors, but that would be balanced out by new jobs in other

sectors. People would adjust, and life would go on. The notion that the

economy would crash if people stopped buying something or other is just

silly. It happens all the time when new technology obsoletes old

technology, or when one business outcompetes another.

[Guest guest]

For many companies I agree with you. The food companies for example.

But those technologies you mention were (are) not multi-billion dollar

companies selling poisons as miracle drugs for " diseases " they created (of

which high cholesterol is only one). And people talk about the old-time

" snake-oil " salesmen!

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Berg [mailto:bberg@...]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> Looking at the change in OUR buying habits, I think if everyone

> ate like us it would kill the economy. If you get one beef

> a year (or shoot an elk, as in the wonderful Harper's article),

> some potatoes, beans, cabbage, onions, carrots, and maybe 50 lbs of

sorghum

> flour a year, and some fruit, you can actually eat pretty well. (Throw

in some dairy

> products ... many people COULD keep a small milk goat though, in

That's not how it works. If you spend less money on food, you'll just

spend more money on something else, which would result in no harm to the

economy (and in fact a net gain, in the sense that you are better off),

or save it, which would help the economy. There would be jobs lost in

some sectors, but that would be balanced out by new jobs in other

sectors. People would adjust, and life would go on. The notion that the

economy would crash if people stopped buying something or other is just

silly. It happens all the time when new technology obsoletes old

technology, or when one business outcompetes another.

[Guest guest]

>That's not how it works. If you spend less money on food, you'll just

>spend more money on something else, which would result in no harm to the

>economy (and in fact a net gain, in the sense that you are better off),

>or save it, which would help the economy.

Are you sure? There seems to be a trend toward " simpler, slower " in

some circles, which is the opposite of the " more, faster " spiral

we've been in. If everyone consumes less, they might decide

to work less, and maybe we'll end up more Amish-like.

Now in terms of net happiness, I'd guess the Amish are

as well off as a yuppie in Bellevue, but in terms of the standard

economic indicators, an Amish-type life wouldn't be good for the

stock market.

I'm not saying anyone will end up on THAT extreme, but that

would be the economic trend. In our case we are working

less, and consuming less. That seems to be the trend

with some of our compatriots also. I know it doesn't

relate directly to " spending less on food " , but that is

how it seems to be working out. Psychologically

one gets disconnected from the whole " work/consume "

power grid.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

,

Let me see now? More diseases that more food production regulation would be

needed to solve. Sounds like when Dad's slaughterhouse had to be tiled over

concrete and the neighbor couldn't sell their milk anymore 40 years ago. Got

to get the middle men into the pie splitting and keep them employed. The

economist, food processor, marketing managers, scientists, transportation,

oil and gasoline etc. Grass fed, pastured, free range, organic, biodynamic,

CSAs. farmer's market vendors and artisinal product producers all say no to

middle men and keep growth and health in the communities. Transportation

lessens product quality and uses other natural resources that are not

without an end. Maybe the first economist was the first land baron 10,000

years ago in Mesopotamia in 's article.

> If it happened literally overnight, sure, but that's not possible. If

> instead small farms gradually proliferate and more people start buying

more

> expensive food directly from them, and getting healthier in the bargain,

> wealth will become somewhat more evenly distributed and people will have

> more disposable income to spend on housing, education, luxuries, and

whatnot.

>

> Big Agro and Big Pharma probably won't let that happen, though, or at

least

> not to nearly the degree it should.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Exactly! We buy quarter or half beef, lady I work for raises lamb, fish

whatever caught. In fall we buy potatoes, onions, carrots, apples, winter

squash in bulk. Dairy and eggs local. Blueberries and cranberries from our

land. If hunting season didn't coincide with DH's busiest worktime before no

winter work and the venison was guaranteed more than the income was needed

there'd be venison too. What bugs me is because the hunting is so restricted

and the accessability to wild meat and fat is too it means we need more

butter, nut butter, raw cheese, avocado and coconut milk which means some

importing , buying. The Harper's article was the most common sense I've seen

in that many words that I can remember. Here we've found out what doesn't

work farm wise for us. Pigs, chickens and what we eat a lot of gardenwise

that can be frozen is whats next.

> Looking at the change in OUR buying habits, I think if everyone

> ate like us it would kill the economy. If you get one beef

> a year (or shoot an elk, as in the wonderful Harper's article),

> some potatoes, beans, cabbage, onions, carrots, and maybe 50 lbs of

sorghum

> flour a year, and some fruit, you can actually eat pretty well. (Throw in

some dairy

> products ... many people COULD keep a small milk goat though, in

> Mendicino county folks were keeping them in suburb-type

> neighborhoods in the '70s). Hmm. And spaghetti and tortillas ...

> anyway, it would be an interesting experiment, the simplest

> diet that is also wonderful to eat.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita:

>. What bugs me is because the hunting is so restricted

>and the accessability to wild meat

Actually venison is supposed to be pretty easy to raise. If you

have fences, you just let them multiply and keep the predators

out. I have thought about it ... we have way too much shrubbery

but we'd need really high fences. Goats multiply in the wild too.

The whole idea of " hunting parks " has an appeal.

> and fat is too it means we need more

>butter, nut butter, raw cheese, avocado and coconut milk which means some

>importing , buying.

Don't you get a lot of fat with the beef? Mine was very lean, but

sheesh, I have enough tallow to cover our needs for a year, and

I didn't even render most of it. I'd think if a family had a beef

AND a pig each year, there'd be plenty of fat. I save chicken and

goose fat too, they are good to use.

>The Harper's article was the most common sense I've seen

>in that many words that I can remember. Here we've found out what doesn't

>work farm wise for us. Pigs, chickens and what we eat a lot of gardenwise

>that can be frozen is whats next.

Our neighbors basically used to feed themselves. They have 5 acres,

but they used very little of it ... one little garden patch and a pig stye

and a few chickens. It would be an interesting study, using a grainless or

low-grain

lifestyle, how much land DOES it take to feed a family? (In most

areas you'd probably still have to buy stuff, but it is an interesting

question).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

I've spoken to doctors and read abundant articles which say exactly that --

there's a heart disease gene (or a few different ones), a diabetes gene, a

baldness gene, etc., and environment plays no or virtually no role. It's

idiotic, but hardly a surprise.

>That doesn't mean there's " a diabetes gene, " and I'm not so sure any serious

>scientist believes there is. But there's a number of genes that relate in

>some way to glucose metabolism, so clearly those genes will influence your

>liklihood of getting diabetes.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

> Actually venison is supposed to be pretty easy to raise. If you

> have fences, you just let them multiply and keep the predators

> out. I have thought about it ... we have way too much shrubbery

> but we'd need really high fences.

We could do it. Have about 12 acres wooded. Not many oaks, acorns make them

taste real good. Fence would be a huge expense. Biggest not is by law you

can only farm imported deer, usually of European origin, smaller than the

Eastern whitetail.

> Don't you get a lot of fat with the beef? Mine was very lean, but

> sheesh, I have enough tallow to cover our needs for a year, and

> I didn't even render most of it. I'd think if a family had a beef

> AND a pig each year, there'd be plenty of fat. I save chicken and

> goose fat too, they are good to use.

Beef we get has good fat amount, some of it yellow. Our third, oldest

freezer in the barn died, ruining last batch of fat we got before I could

render it. Luckily that was all that was in it. Easier on workdays at 6:30

AM to have some coconut milk for breakfast, grab cheese and avocado for

lunch and out the door. Someday I'll get that tallow or lard, make jerky and

dry blueberries for pemmican.

>

It would be an interesting study, using a grainless or low-grain

> lifestyle, how much land DOES it take to feed a family? (In most

> areas you'd probably still have to buy stuff, but it is an interesting

> question).

Lot of the books farming on X amount of acres always included grainfield. If

you're raising a beef or dairy there's got to be a haysource on the land

otherwise you're not doing it all on the acres. Pigs and chickens don't need

much room. Could cornfeed some in less space than hayfield as long as it was

a non hybrid. Chickens you can plant millet that is fast growing, let them

at it. Have about 5 acres clear here, 2 of it beaver pond so my options are

limited.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Sounds like Metabolic Typing proportional research. For the second category

a more accurate statement would be " you're certainly more likely to get

diabetes in response to eating the SAD food pyramid diet and therefore need

a diet less processed, higher in protein and fat and lower in carbs. "

> Diabetes clearly has a genetic component-- it's been established by a

> considerable amount of research that some 20 or 25% of the population can

eat as much

> carbs as they want without insulin problems, while another quarter are

very

> sensitive to excessive carbs, and the majority lie in the middle. If

you're in

> the second category you're certainly more likely to get diabetes in

response

> to poor diet.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

If there is, indeed, a " diabetes gene " why didn't more people get diabetes

before fake foods entered the market?

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

> So for at least three to four generations of people have these diseases

> that

> " run in the family " so they MUST be genetic. Right? WRONG! ! !

Judith,

Are you sure you aren't arguing against a straw man? As far as I know, no

one claims that many diseases are wholly determined by genetics. Pretty

much

every aspect of a person, in health or disease, has some sort of genetic

component, and some sort of environmental component.

Diabetes clearly has a genetic component-- it's been established by a

considerable amount of research that some 20 or 25% of the population can

eat as much

carbs as they want without insulin problems, while another quarter are very

sensitive to excessive carbs, and the majority lie in the middle. If you're

in

the second category you're certainly more likely to get diabetes in response

to poor diet.

That doesn't mean there's " a diabetes gene, " and I'm not so sure any serious

scientist believes there is. But there's a number of genes that relate in

some way to glucose metabolism, so clearly those genes will influence your

liklihood of getting diabetes.

Chris

[Guest guest]

If you want venison come to Michigan. Last I knew we have more deer per acre

than almost any other state. The last few years hunters have been able to

get a deer and then get another license for another, and so on. Many hunters

bagged as many as three or four deer. All during the regular hunting season.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

Wanita:

>. What bugs me is because the hunting is so restricted

>and the accessability to wild meat

Actually venison is supposed to be pretty easy to raise. If you

have fences, you just let them multiply and keep the predators

out. I have thought about it ... we have way too much shrubbery

but we'd need really high fences. Goats multiply in the wild too.

The whole idea of " hunting parks " has an appeal.

> and fat is too it means we need more

>butter, nut butter, raw cheese, avocado and coconut milk which means some

>importing , buying.

Don't you get a lot of fat with the beef? Mine was very lean, but

sheesh, I have enough tallow to cover our needs for a year, and

I didn't even render most of it. I'd think if a family had a beef

AND a pig each year, there'd be plenty of fat. I save chicken and

goose fat too, they are good to use.

>The Harper's article was the most common sense I've seen

>in that many words that I can remember. Here we've found out what doesn't

>work farm wise for us. Pigs, chickens and what we eat a lot of gardenwise

>that can be frozen is whats next.

Our neighbors basically used to feed themselves. They have 5 acres,

but they used very little of it ... one little garden patch and a pig stye

and a few chickens. It would be an interesting study, using a grainless or

low-grain

lifestyle, how much land DOES it take to feed a family? (In most

areas you'd probably still have to buy stuff, but it is an interesting

question).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Judith,

Are you referring to a specific connection between a drug company and Reader's

Digest? Or just speculating on something that could happen?

Daphne

>

> And you are right that the drug companies will do everything in their power

> to keep those ill gotten billions rolling in. Such as buying out magazines

> like Reader's Digest.

>

> Judith Alta

>

[Guest guest]

If you have seen Reader's Digest recently you would immediately see what I'm

talking about. A friend gave me a subscription for Christmas. I've not

actually counted them, but it seems that the majority of the ads are for

prescription drugs of one kind or another. The columns on medical

" breakthroughs " read as if they had come directly from the drug companies'

PR office. Not one downside is mentioned.

The January issue had a bit on statins, claiming that people who take them

are less likely to get Alzheimer's than those who don't take them. Also the

same bit had several other reasons why everyone should be taking the

cholesterol lowering drugs. Don't have the magazine at hand or I'd quote

from it.

With that much money from drug ads it would be a miracle if RD mentioned

anything against the drugs produced by those who advertise with them.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Daphne Blumenthal [mailto:biophile410@...]

Judith,

Are you referring to a specific connection between a drug company and

Reader's

Digest? Or just speculating on something that could happen?

Daphne

[Guest guest]

Judith,

The marketing behind that is that the majority of Reader's Digest readers

are in the age bracket of 50 +, have insurance, go to doctors regularly and

more than likely will need a prescription. It's sad, as the target market is

my parents and in laws who made it through the Depression, WWII,

industrialization, the transition from one parent home to two parents having

to work, the huge food transition, then the rest of their life after

retirement going to doctors, pharmacies then likely nursing homes. Dad never

changed his diet much over the years, has been to doctors less than a half

dozen times in my 47 years and is the healthiest of the 4.

> If you have seen Reader's Digest recently you would immediately see what

I'm

> talking about. A friend gave me a subscription for Christmas. I've not

> actually counted them, but it seems that the majority of the ads are for

> prescription drugs of one kind or another. The columns on medical

> " breakthroughs " read as if they had come directly from the drug companies'

> PR office. Not one downside is mentioned.

>

> The January issue had a bit on statins, claiming that people who take them

> are less likely to get Alzheimer's than those who don't take them. Also

the

> same bit had several other reasons why everyone should be taking the

> cholesterol lowering drugs. Don't have the magazine at hand or I'd quote

> from it.

>

> With that much money from drug ads it would be a miracle if RD mentioned

> anything against the drugs produced by those who advertise with them.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita,

Sad it is.

I think of one TV ad that I saw. This slim, healthy looking, gray haired

woman is saying. " I never used to have to take prescription drugs. But now

that I'm 62 . . . " I tuned out at that point because I was so furious.

I listen to the list of bad effects of the advertised drug that was just

painted with a rosy paintbrush and wonder why anyone in their right mind

would ever want to take it. But I'm sure the ads are designed so that people

will remember the pretty ad and not the bad stuff at the end.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Wanita Sears [mailto:wanitawa@...]

Judith,

The marketing behind that is that the majority of Reader's Digest readers

are in the age bracket of 50 +, have insurance, go to doctors regularly and

more than likely will need a prescription. It's sad, as the target market is

my parents and in laws who made it through the Depression, WWII,

industrialization, the transition from one parent home to two parents having

to work, the huge food transition, then the rest of their life after

retirement going to doctors, pharmacies then likely nursing homes. Dad never

changed his diet much over the years, has been to doctors less than a half

dozen times in my 47 years and is the healthiest of the 4.

> If you have seen Reader's Digest recently you would immediately see what

I'm

> talking about. A friend gave me a subscription for Christmas. I've not

> actually counted them, but it seems that the majority of the ads are for

> prescription drugs of one kind or another. The columns on medical

> " breakthroughs " read as if they had come directly from the drug companies'

> PR office. Not one downside is mentioned.

>

> The January issue had a bit on statins, claiming that people who take them

> are less likely to get Alzheimer's than those who don't take them. Also

the

> same bit had several other reasons why everyone should be taking the

> cholesterol lowering drugs. Don't have the magazine at hand or I'd quote

> from it.

>

> With that much money from drug ads it would be a miracle if RD mentioned

> anything against the drugs produced by those who advertise with them.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Judith,

Worst part is the taxpayer pays for the research, pays for the drug. The

corporation gets a tax deduction for the advertising and is freed from

litigation because of the disclaimer if the drug has the side effect.

There's always the playing with the kids or running through a field of

daisies type message implied.

> Sad it is.

> I listen to the list of bad effects of the advertised drug that was just

> painted with a rosy paintbrush and wonder why anyone in their right mind

> would ever want to take it. But I'm sure the ads are designed so that

people

> will remember the pretty ad and not the bad stuff at the end.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

And if we say that Vitamin C will prevent colds we are said to be practicing

medicine without a license and thrown into jail!

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Wanita Sears [mailto:wanitawa@...]

Judith,

Worst part is the taxpayer pays for the research, pays for the drug. The

corporation gets a tax deduction for the advertising and is freed from

litigation because of the disclaimer if the drug has the side effect.

There's always the playing with the kids or running through a field of

daisies type message implied.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/30/04 12:04:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I've spoken to doctors and read abundant articles which say exactly that --

>

> there's a heart disease gene (or a few different ones), a diabetes gene, a

> baldness gene, etc., and environment plays no or virtually no role. It's

> idiotic, but hardly a surprise.

Are there genetic scientists who believe this, or are there idiotic doctors

misinterpreting the research?

Chris